Jim Tobin wrote:

>"...an easy bet, since the population is so much bigger now".  A
>population explosion doesn't equate to a cultural explosion.

Jim Tobin's comment has sense behind it.  Logically if there are x
number of creative people in any given population, if the total number
increases, in theory so do the number of talents.More significantly, at
no time in history has information been so widespread and available to
most, reinforced by the idea that all can participate, not just privileged
minorities.  In music terms, the general standard of playing is higher
than before, witness youth orchestras managing repertoire that foxed
19th century professionals.  Because we have recordings, communications
and international travel, we are exposed to much more, and of a higher
standard, than previous generations.  And because there is more of the
past, there is more to learn from!  Obviously genius doesn't follow
logical or exponiential rules, since by nature it's unpredictable.  But
seldom in history have circumstances combined to enrich knowledge and
to encourage creativity.  A basic knowledge of music history reveals a
pattern that new music needs generations to settle in.  Schubert for
example was relatively unknown except as a composer of songs - and even
his major cycles were not performed in entirety for decades.  A hundred
years after his death, they were just putting together the "D" numbers
to his oeuvre.  Quite likely, you could compile a book of quotes from
doomsayers of the past bemoaning the lack of new music in their times
and berating composers whom we accept today as among the greats.

Anne
[log in to unmask]